RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01191
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her separation, she was told that she would be eligible to upgrade her discharge to honorable after one year.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of her DD Fm 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Feb 80.  On 30 Nov 81, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 4-2c.  The specific reasons for this action are on 14 Jan 81, she received a letter of counseling for speeding on base; on 2 Mar 81 she received a letter of reprimand for failing to stop at a posted stop sign and not having in her possession a valid drivers license; on 2 Apr 81, she received an Article 15 for driving while drunk; on 3 Apr 81 she received a traffic citation for parking in a reserved spot; on 3 Jul 81, she was financially irresponsible in that her NCO open mess account was over 30 days delinquent; on 23 Jul 81, she received an Article 15 for operating a motor vehicle under revocation; on 4 Aug 81 she was diagnosed as having an alcohol problem but made no visible action to rehabilitate yourself; on 1 Nov 81, she received a letter of reprimand for failure to go.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date and after consulting counsel, elected to make a presentation to her commander on her own behalf.  Her case was presented before an evaluation officer who recommended that she be discharged from the Air Force and provided a general discharge.  In a review of her discharge case file, the wing staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  On 23 Feb 82, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force.  She served 2 years and 16 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  She did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in her discharge processing.  She provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 May 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of her discharge to honorable.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that she has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the action taken to affect her discharge from the Air Force was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations at the time; or, that the characterization of her service was based on factors other than her own misconduct.  We considered upgrading her discharge on the basis of clemency; however, the applicant failed to provide documentation pertaining to her post-service activities.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01191 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.